Court partially allows writ appeals, remands to Assessing Officer for independent decision. Personal hearing and compliance required.

The Court partly allowed the writ appeals, sustaining the remand order to the Assessing Officer for an independent decision in accordance with the law. The Assessing Officer was directed to afford a personal hearing to the respondent and conduct the assessment process appropriately, ensuring compliance with legal requirements.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to assessment orders based on Enforcement Wing Officials' report, revision of assessment jurisdiction, non-compliance of statutory provisions, application of mind to relevant facts, remand order by Writ Court, validity of revision of assessment, procedural impropriety, taxability determination, maintainability of writ petitions, appeal under Section 51 of the Act, independent decision by Assessing Officer.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed by the Assistant Commissioner challenging the order passed in writ petitions where the respondent, a registered dealer under TNVAT Act, contested assessment orders and sought acceptance of a revised return. The primary issue raised was the reliance on Enforcement Wing Officials' report for assessment, jurisdiction of revision, and non-compliance with statutory provisions. The Writ Court remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for a speaking order within a specified time frame, focusing on purchase tax levy under Section 12(1) of the TNVAT Act.

The Additional Advocate General argued that the remand order restricted the demand and directed a specific manner of proceeding, which was challenged in the appeals. The respondent's counsel highlighted the reliance on a similar case precedent regarding purchase tax levy on different products, emphasizing the need for the Assessing Officer to consider objections independently without being bound by circulars.

The Court referred to the precedent case where the dealer was directed to exhaust statutory remedies and objections before the Assessing Officer independently. The respondent sought a similar fresh consideration by the Assessing Officer on all factual and legal issues. The Court analyzed the jurisdictional aspects, procedural impropriety, and the need for an independent decision by the Assessing Officer without influence from previous observations or reports.

Ultimately, the Court partly allowed the writ appeals, sustaining the remand order to the Assessing Officer for an independent decision in accordance with the law, emphasizing the need for a fresh assessment without influence from previous findings or reports. The Assessing Officer was directed to afford a personal hearing to the respondent and conduct the assessment process appropriately, ensuring compliance with legal requirements.

---